Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
California State ArchivesState Government Oral History Program
Oral History Interview
with
HON. JAMES D. GARIBALDI
California State Assemblyman, 1935-1938Legislative Representative, 1946 to present
January 11 and 16, 1989Sacramento, California
By Carole HickeRegional Oral History Office
University of California, Berkeley
RESTRICTIONS ON THIS INTERVIEW
None.
LITERARY RIGHTS AND QUOTATIONS
This manuscript is hereby made available for research purposes only. No partof the manuscript may be quoted for publication without the written permission ofthe California State Archivist or RegIOnal Oral History Office, University ofCalifornia at Berkeley.
Requests for permission to quote for publication should be addressed to:
California State Archives1020 0 Street, Room 130Sacramento, California 95814
or
Regional Oral History Office486 LibraryUniversity of CaliforniaBerkeley, California 94720
The request should include information of the specific passages andidentification of the user.
It is recommended that this oral history be cited as follows:James D. Garibaldi, Oral History Interview, Conducted 1989 by CaroleHicke, Regional Oral History Office, University of California atBerkeley, for the California State Archives State Government OralHistory Program.
March Fong EuSecretary of State
California State Archives
10200 Street, Room 130
Sacramento, CA 95814
PREFACE
Information
Research Room
Exhibit Hall
Legislative Bill Service
(prior years)
(916) 445-4293
(916) 445-4293
(916) 445-4293
(916) 445-2832
On September 25, 1985, Governor George Deukmejian signedinto law A.B. 2104 (Chapter 965 of the Statutes of 1985).This legislation established, under the administration ofthe California State Archives, a State Government OralHistory Program lito provide through the use of oral historya continuing documentation of state policy development asreflected in California's legislative and executivehistory. II
The following interview is one of a series of oral historiesundertaken for inclusion in the state program. Theseinterviews offer insights into the actual workings of boththe legislative and executive processes and policymechanisms. They also offer an increased understanding ofthe men and women who create legislation and implement statepolicy. Further, they provide an overview of issuedevelopment in California state government and of how boththe legislative and executive branches of government dealwith issues and problems facing the state.
Interviewees are chosen primarily on the basis of theircontributions to and influence on the policy process of thestate of California. They include members of thelegislative and executive branches of the state governmentas well as legislative staff, advocates, members of themedia, and other people who played significant roles inspecific issue areas of major and continuing importance toCalifornia.
By authorizing the California State Archives to workcooperatively with oral history units at California collegesand universities to conduct interviews, this program isstructured to take advantage of the resources and expertisein oral history available through California's severalinstitutionally based programs.
e~-
'''''''''CU''-"
Participating as cooperating institutions in the stateGovernment Oral History Program are:
Oral History ProgramHistory DepartmentCalifornia state University, Fullerton
Oral History ProgramCenter for California studiesCalifornia state University, Sacramento
Oral History ProgramClaremont Graduate School
Regional Oral History OfficeThe Bancroft LibraryUniversity of California, Berkeley
Oral History ProgramUniversity of California, Los Angeles
The establishment of the California state Archives StateGovernment Oral History Program marks one of the mostsignificant commitments made by any state toward thepreservation and documentation of its governmental history.It supplements the often fragmentary historical writtenrecord by adding an organized primary source, enriching thehistorical information available on given topics andallowing for more thorough historical analysis. As such,the program, through the preservation and pUblication ofinterviews such as the one which follows, will be of lastingvalue to current and future generations of scholars,citizens, and leaders.
John F. BurnsState Archivist
July 27, 1988
This interview is printed on acid-free paper.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTERVIEW HISTORY .i
BIOGRAPHICAL SUMMARy ii
SESSION 1, January 11,1989
[Tape 1, Side A] 1
Background and early education--Law school--Work experience withC. Ray Robinson--Campaign for assembly, 1935--Issues in the district-Impressions of assembly, 1935.
[Tape 1, Side B] 9
Speakers of the assembly--Water issue: Williams v. City and CountyofSan Francisco, 1942--Partisanship.
SESSION 2, January 16,1989
[Tape 2, Side A] 14
Sacramento--Voting--Living conditions--Camaraderie.
[Tape 2, Side B] 19
State income tax--Committee work--Senator Hugh Burns--TomMooney--Governor Culbert Olson.
[Tape 3, Side A] 27
Judicial Career--World War II service--Legal practice--Signal OilCompany--Lobbyist for Hollywood Park--Lobbyists in general-Governor Earl Warren.
[Tape 3, Side B] 34
Changes in the legislature--Career as lobbyist in Sacramento-Campaign financing--Speakers and governors.
[Tape 4, Side A] 41
Joe Ratigan--Clients--Governor Ronald Reagan.
[Tape 4, Side B] 45
Speakers of the assernbly--Presidents pro tern of the senate--TheThird House--Tidelands Oil--Final thoughts.
APPENDIX A: HISTORY OF THE LEGISLATURE .49
APPENDIX B: ROLE OF THE LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE 55
INTERVIEW HISTORY
Interviewer/Editor:
Carole HickeInterviewer/Editor, University of California at Berkeley Regional Oral
History OfficeState Government Oral History ProgramDirector, Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro History ProjectDirector, Morrison & Foerster History ProjectM.A. San Francisco State University (history)B.A. University of Iowa (economics)
Interview Time and Place:
January 11, 1989: session of one hourJanuary 16, 1989: session of three hoursBoth sessions took place in Judge Garibaldi's office in Sacramento, California.
Editing:
Hicke checked the verbatim manuscript of the interview against the originaltape recordings, edited for punctuation, paragraphing, and spelling, and verifiedproper names. Insertions by the editor are bracketed. The interviewer also preparedthe introductory materials.
Judge Garibaldi reviewed the transcript and approved it with extensivecorrections and deletions.
Papers:
No papers were available to the interviewer.
Tapes and Interview Records:
The original tape recordings of the interviews are in the Bancroft Library atthe University of California at Berkeley along with the records relating to theinterview. Master tapes are preserved at the California State Archives inSacramento.
1
BIOGRAPHICAL SUMMARY
James Donald Garibaldi was born in Merced, California on July 27, 1906. Heattended Merced Public School, Stanford University, and Boalt Hall Law School atthe University of California, Berkeley. He practiced law in Los Angeles andSacramento, served as state assemblyman 1935-1939, was elected superior courtjudge, and has been a legislative advocate and attorney since 1945. He served in theU.S. Army Air Corps 1942-1945 and was discharged as a lieutenant colonel. He alsoserved as special assistant to the U.S. Attorney General in 1953.
Judge Garibaldi is a Democrat and member of Elks, Fraternal Order ofEagles, Native Sons of Golden West, and 20-30 Club.
11
1
[Session 1, January 11, 1989]
[Begin Tape 1, Side A]
RICKE:
GARIBALDI:
RICKE:
GARIBALDI:
RICKE:
GARIBALDI:
RICKE:
GARIBALDI:
RICKE:
Well, why don't we start this morning, Judge Garibaldi, with some
background information about you--when and where you were
born?
Born in Merced, California, July 27, 1906. I was educated in the
Merced public schools, went to Stanford University, graduated
from Stanford, took my law degree at [University of California at
Berkeley] Boalt RaIl.
Let's stop there for just a minute. Row did you get interested in
the law?
Originally I had considered becoming a lawyer, but other than
having done preliminary legal work at Stanford, I had never
definitely made up my mind to be a lawyer. I thought maybe I
might get interested in trust work in banking, but I was advised in
discussions with Mr. [Amadeo Peter] A.P. Giannini, who was a
family friend, that a person should have a legal background to do
trust work.
Did you say A.P. Giannini of the Bank of America?
Yes, that's right. Re advised me to go back to law school and I
did. Mr. Giannini was a family friend. My grandfather had been
on bank boards of the Giannini family. I had an uncle who worked
for the bank, and the families had known each other for a long,
long time.
Were there any other lawyers in your family?
No.
Did your family stress professions or education?
GARIBALDI:
HICKE:
GARIBALDI:
HICKE:
GARIBALDI:
HICKE:
GARIBALDI:
HICKE:
2
No. My grandfather came over during the gold rush.
From where?
From Genoa, Italy. He came over with another Italian by the
name of Olcese. The two of them came around the Horn [Cape
Horn]. When they got to San Francisco they went to the gold
country and mined for a short time, like a month or so. They
decided they were not miners. They came back and started a large
store in Merced. They ran these big wagons all up through the
mining area. Grandfather said you could buy anything from their
store from a toothpick to a cannon. The families were merchants
and property owners in Merced County. Later, after my father had
retired, he became the tax collector of Merced County; he was tax
collector there for years. When I came home and ran for the
assembly, it was the first year he had not run. He was not on the
ticket but I think everybody in Merced County thought they were
voting for him when they were voting for me. I attribute the
reason I got elected to the assembly was they thought they were
voting for my dad.
That's a good story. [Laughter]
Well, there's quite a bit of truth to it, I think, because he was very
well known and they voted for the name. As we'd say nowadays, I
had great name identification in Merced County.
Right. So you grew up in Merced County and went through public
education in schools there and then went to Stanford. Why did
you go to Boalt Hall then?
There were a number of reasons. It was the time of the
Depression and Stanford Law School was much more expensive
than [University of] California. I had been in athletics and on the
baseball team while I was at school. I thought maybe if I could get
away from the general undergraduate activities I'd become more
in the nature of a graduate student.
Was this about 1933 or so?
GARIBALDI:
,HICKE:
GARIBALDI:
HICKE:
GARIBALDI:
HICKE:
GARIBALDI:
HICKE:
GARIBALDI:
HICKE:
GARIBALDI:
HICKE:
GARIBALDI:
HICKE:
GARIBALDI:
HICKE:
3
I believe so. I'm very, very bad at dates, but I was admitted to the
bar in '32. I could be off a year or so either way. I'm not sure
about that. I think around '32.
Do you recall any of your professors at Boalt Hall?
Oh sure, I remember some of them very well. I was a very good
friend of Professor McBaine, James McBaine, who taught
evidence. He was interested in baseball, and I was playing
baseball then for the Olympic Club and various other teams. We
used to go to the games together, and we would discuss legal
problems and matters of evidence. McBaine had a great deal of
influence on my curriculum, my study habits. Then [Justice Roger]
Traynor, who came on the supreme court, was a friend and also he
was one of my professors.
Did you say you knew Turner McBaine also?
I didn't know Turner at that time.
We're back to Professor McBaine?
Yes. He was a just a wonderful, well-rounded man. We had a
great staff on the faculty at Boalt, when I was there. [George
Purcell] Costigan [Jr.] taught contracts. Henry Winthrop
Ballantine also taught there.
[Alexander M.] "Captain" Kidd?
"Captain" Kidd was there, yes.
Did you have him?
Yes. Had him in torts.
Let's see. You started to say something about Roger Traynor.
Well, I took bills and notes from Roger, I think during a summer
session, but later on I knew Roger very well. I first met him during
a summer session. Whether he was a full professor at that time,
I'm not sure.
He was quite a person, I gather.
Yes. I liked the judge very much.
What were you particularly interested in? What kind of law?
GARIBALDI:
RICKE:
GARIBALDI:
RICKE:
GARIBALDI:
RICKE:
GARIBALDI:
RICKE:
GARIBALDI:
RICKE:
GARIBALDI:
RICKE:
GARIBALDI:
RICKE:
GARIBALDI:
4
Nothing specialized at that time. When I got out, I went to work
with [Assemblyman C.] Ray Robinson in Merced. We did general
law. We did everything.
That's C. Ray Robinson?
Yes. C. Ray Robinson.
Was your practice mostly in Merced County?
Yes.
You started to tell me earlier that in 1933, it was your first time in
Sacramento visiting.
Well, Ray Robinson was the assemblyman from Merced County in
'31 and '33, and I used to come up to Sacramento with him. That
was where I first had the opportunity to meet [James] Jim Rolph
from San Francisco, who was governor. I knew him and was
around Sacramento during the time he was governor, but I was not
in the legislature at that time.
Were you involved at all in that campaign then? I think Upton
Sinclair ran on that "End Poverty in California" slogan.
Well, the year that I was elected, the '35 session, they had all that
"End Poverty" slogan. "Chicken in every pot." "Money every
Thursday." There were a million slogans. I had no participation in
any of that business.
What made you decide to run for the assembly?
Well, like a lot of the younger people in those days, it was a good
idea to get around and have an opportunity to meet the people in
the district. It gave you insight into the way the state government
ran, and I was interested in things of that sort. Robinson had been
the assemblyman and so I thought it would be a good opportunity
for a young man. I'm glad. I think I did the smart thing.
Now did he decide not to run again?
Yes.
And so he encouraged you?
Oh, yes. Re endorsed me and I followed in his footsteps. We
were practicing law together.
RICKE:
GARIBALDI:
RICKE:
GARIBALDI:
RICKE:
GARIBALDI:
GARIBALDI:
RICKE:
GARIBALDI:
RICKE:
GARIBALDI:
5
Why did he not run?
Oh, he'd been here for two terms. Re'd had enough.
What was the campaign like?
The campaign was unlike campaigns nowadays. In the first place,
you had cross-filing. You ran on both tickets and could win in the
primary if you got the nomination of the party for which you were
registered and a majority of the votes of the other party. I got my
party nomination, Democrat, and a majority of the Republican
votes; so I was elected in the primary. I am trying to think what my
campaign cost, but I'm sure it wasn't over one thousand dollars.
That was going to be my next question. Row did you raise the
money?
I had a few people, just friends of my father's and myself. There
was no finance chairman, no general manager or anything. Our
biggest expense ...
[Interruption]
They had weekly papers in those days in the towns of Los Banos,
Gustine, Los Palos. Madera was in my district. All the different
towns had weekly papers and ten dollars put the notice in the
paper. That was the big cost. There was no television at that time
and not too much radio.
Did you ever go on the radio?
Yes, but in those days they were looking for somebody to fill up
time more than they were looking for somebody to pay for
advertising. So I really have no definite recollection of that cost.
Gasoline was cheap. I drove myself for the most part. Went house
to house and town to town. Of course, a thousand dollars went a
long way in those days.
You spoke before groups?
We spoke before the American Legion, the teachers association,
the Farm Bureau, the Grange, chambers of commerce, all the
agricultural groups. You'd go to graduations of high schools and
things of that sort. It's sort of a funny thing. I met an
RICKE:
GARIBALDI:
RICKE:
GARIBALDI:
RICKE:
GARIBALDI:
RICKE:
GARIBALDI:
6
assemblyman by the name of Rusty Oreas. I met him when he first
came up. Re was telling me that he knew I was from Merced and
had represented that district at one time. Re said, "When my
father comes up here, he wants to meet you. " And I said, "That's
fine. Why?" And he said, "Well, you gave him his diploma when
he graduated from grammar schoo1."
Oh, how nice.
That sort of thing. That was the way you campaigned.
Were there any issues that you discussed?
Well, it was a farming community. We didn't have a great deal of
labor. At that particular time, the Merced Irrigation District had
been formed and in its formative stages had some financial
problems. As I recall there was a lot of property where taxes
hadn't been paid and there were problems about what were we
going to do with the bondholders. I'm a little rusty on the exact
details of that, but I remember we were always hoping for some
sort of a moratorium on bond payments so that the delinquency of
the Merced Irrigation District could be cut down. That was the
other issue, of course. All the problems of the milk industry, the
questions of how much you were going to have in the way of
controls, the question of an oleomargarine and whether it should
be taxed.
Water?
Well, yes. That was the irrigation district. That was the
foundation of the whole problem. The water problems that we
have now, like the Peripheral Canal and the Central Valley Water
Project, those were years away. At that particular time they
weren't an issue.
Were the farmers getting enough water?
There was a lot of dry farming in those days. The situation was
different than it is now. You see, when we went from dry farming
of the wheat, that's when we established the irrigation district. It
was the savior of the area, but it was awfully tough sledding in the
HICKE:
GARIBALDI:
HICKE:
GARIBALDI:
HICKE:
GARIBALDI:
HICKE:
GARIBALDI:
HICKE:
GARIBALDI:
HICKE:
GARIBALDI:
7
original start of the district and there were a lot of tax
delinquencies. For the old time landowner it was a tough period,
and this question of what they were going to do about our bonded
indebtedness was very important. Actually we didn't have all that
much control over it, really, from the legislative standpoint, but we
talked a lot about what we'd be able to do, or would try to do.
How do you mean the irrigation district saved the area?
Oh, I mean the theory of getting irrigation, of having lands
irrigated and having water available. We didn't have to rely on
rainfall and dry farming.
And that was not profitable?
Well, it was profitable, but it was obviously not nearly as profitable
as irrigated property, and it restricted your farming to certain
crops. For instance, irrigated crops can bring you peaches--your
orchards and all that. Anything that takes a lot of water.
Obviously dry farming is not very good in the California summer.
No. Frankly, I can't recall if that was any great part of the
campaign. I mean we touched on it--it was an issue--but it was just
generally that we talked about the farming problem, the farming
community, period.
This poster is 1934: primary election, August 28, 1934.
Yes, that was the '35 session.
"Candidate for assemblyman, 33rd District, Merced and Madera
counties," and a picture of a very handsome young man.
Obviously old and not clear.
So that was your first run. And then you went to Sacramento in
1935. What were your first impressions when you got there?
My first impression was being brought into a caucus. We were
going to vote as one, the way the majority voted. There were those
of us who thought that was a little tough. There were all those
people from southern California. And it looked to us that we were
giving up our vote to be a rubber stamp for the south. There were
four of us that decided we'd make our own choice. These four
HICKE:
GARIBALDI:
HICKE:
GARIBALDI:
HICKE:
GARIBALDI:
HICKE:
GARIBALDI:
HICKE:
GARIBALDI:
8
turned out to be people that ultimately became very well known in
Sacramento. Senator [Earl D.] Desmond from Sacramento,
[Senator James] Jim McBride from Ventura, [Assemblyman
Clinton] Fulcher, who passed away during his assembly term, and
myself.
And was it Senator Olson, Culbert Olson, who called the caucus?
Culbert Olson was senator at that time.
And he was the one who tried to ...
... put the caucus together and tell us who to vote for.
And what happened when you didn't go along? Anything?
We elected [Assemblyman Edward] Ted Craig speaker, who was a
Republican.
And you voted for him?
About five of us, I guess. And the man, the Democrat we didn't
vote for, [Assemblyman William] Moseley Jones, became a close
friend of all of us. Next year we elected him speaker. If Mr. Olson
had left well enough alone we probably would have elected him
that first time. But Ted Craig was a very high-class man, a good
speaker. He didn't run the next year for the assembly; he retired.
Then Moseley came on in and was our speaker. He was also a fine
man.
I want to get back to that in a minute. But I also want to get to the
story of John Pelletier.
Oh, the first week in the legislature, there were a lot of problems
in regard to the commercial fishermen in San Francisco.
Assemblymen [William] Bill Hornblower and [Thomas] Tom
Maloney were introducing bills having to do with the numbers of
the catch and what they could do with it and whatnot. After about
the first two or three days, Pelletier gets up and says, "Mr. Speaker,
I want to ask a question." The speaker says, "What is it, John?"
"Well," he says, "I've been here for three days now. All I hear is
'feesh, feesh, feesh.' When are we going to talk about the people?"
9
HICKE:
HICKE:
GARIBALDI:
GARIBALDI:
That's wonderful. Well, Tom Maloney was a rather famous
person, was he not?
Tom Maloney had been a state senator from San Francisco at one
time. Then his senate district was abolished and he became an
assemblyman. A very fine man. Bill Hornblower was very well
known too.
What kind of leadership did these two speakers you mentioned
exert?
When you speak about what leadership speakers exert, leadership
is always exercised by speakers. Actually the accent on leadership
was always present. But it really got to be of major proportions
after Speaker Jesse [M.] Unruh.
[End Tape 1, Side A]
[Begin Tape 1, Side B]
GARIBALDI:
HICKE:
GARIBALDI:
HICKE:
GARIBALDI:
HICKE:
They presided over the assembly. They were very important in the
selection of the committees. They were the leading factor of the
operation of the house but were not nearly as aggressive or as
active as the present, as later speakers were.
Not as powerful?
Well, that depends on what you mean by the word "powerful."
They never attempted to exert the same type of influence over the
members that speakers do at the present time. I think the power
was probably always there if they had tried to use it, but it just
wasn't the game in those days. You must remember, '37 was the
last year I was in the legislature; so there was an awful lot of
change. You're talking about fifty years.
You were there about one term?
Two terms. I was there in '35 and '37. In '39 I ran for the
judgeship and was elected to the judgeship.
OK. Well, back to '35 and '37, what kind of relationships did the
speakers have with the governor?
GARIBALDI:
HICKE:
GARIBALDI:
HICKE:
GARIBALDI:
HICKE:
GARIBALDI:
HICKE:
10
Well, in my first year, '35, the governor at that time was [Frank F.]
Merriam, who was a Republican. He came after Rolph. He was a
Republican from Long Beach, and Craig was a Republican. And
in the legislature, I think there were around four or five more
Democrats that particular year than there were Republicans. I can
recall no great problems that the governor had with the legislature
or the legislature with the governor. As far as Merriam was
concerned--he was from the Midwest--I wouldn't call him a very
dynamic personality. I wouldn't consider him aggressive
particularly.
I don't know; I can think of no confrontations between the
governor and the legislature during that first period of '35. I think
things went smoothly. If there were any, they didn't impress me to
the extent that fifty years later I remember them.
Olson was the next governor. Was he elected in 1939?
I'm not sure. Culbert Olson was the next governor after Merriam.
He was a Democrat. And someone said on the floor of the senate
--in fact, I remember who it was. It was Senator [Jerrold L.] Jerry
Seawell. He said Olson looked more like a senator and acted less
like one than anybody he ever knew. Olson was a handsome man.
Curly white hair. I never heard anybody disagree with Jerry's
opinion. He got no better when he became governor.
Why didn't he?
Well, I just didn't think he did. It's just one person's opinion.
Jerry is the one that made the statement. I don't know why he
thought so. But I agreed with him.
He didn't act dignified?
Well, he was dignified enough. But I just never cared for him.
They said at the time that he would set the Democratic party back
twenty years. Well, he almost did.
OK. Well, back to the assembly. That was during the Depression
years. Was that an issue?
GARIBALDI:
RICKE:
GARIBALDI:
RICKE:
GARIBALDI:
RICKE:
GARIBALDI:
RICKE:
GARIBALDI:
RICKE:
GARIBALDI:
RICKE:
GARIBALDI:
11
I can remember that one of the big issues at the time was in regard
to the building and loans first, now called savings and loans. There
was also a lot of legislation on small loans. Questions of what
banks and savings and loans could do.
Things haven't changed much, have they?
Not too much, no. In those days there was a little bit more of a
quorum. That was the start of when the savings and loans made
inroads into the banks. The banks had had it pretty much their
own way for a long time. Now the savings and loans were coming
into certain prominence and they were having their problems as
they're having them now. It was a time of unrest, as far as I recall.
OK. We started this in a hurry without much chance to look up
the issues, but maybe I can do some research there.
Yes. That might perk up my memory.
Yes, sure. And then we talked about water. When you got into
the assembly were there other controversies about water?
You know, when you talk about water you're talking about
something close to me. Of all the bills I've had and all the
legislation I've been interested in as a lobbyist and as a legislator, I
considered the most important thing that I'd ever done or
accomplished in connection with public service was in the question
of water and it was a decision that I rendered in a water case
involving Retch Retchy and the city of San Francisco.
Since we're on that, can you tell me about that?
It was Williams versus City and County ofSan Francisco.
Was it reported?
Yes. It's 56 Cal App 2d 374 [1942]. Williams was a landowner, a
riparian owner, on the river.
And he was questioning San Francisco's rights?
Yes. The case had gone to the supreme court either two or three
times before and was reversed each time. I was always kidded
about my decision, as both sides appealed. The supreme court,
however, sustained my opinion and the decision became law.
RICKE:
GARIBALDI:
RICKE:
GARIBALDI:
RICKE:
GARIBALDI:
RICKE:
GARIBALDI:
RICKE:
GARIBALDI:
RICKE:
12
What was the decision?
Oversimplified the decision held that the riparian right was the
primary right in California. But if the riparian right could show no
beneficial use and the adverse users could show beneficial use then
they could use the water.
Certainly water is an important issue in California.
It's one of the biggest issues is California. We've got to work out
some way where all the state has water, not just the north, or for
the complete benefit of the south. There are no magic solutions to
anything.
Well, let's see. Tell me about partisanship in the assembly at that
time.
Partisanship was never as big a factor in early days as now. There
were Republicans and Democrats, and there were conservatives
and liberals. It was always there, but it was never the complete
motivator.
Rowand when did that change?
I think that there has been a gradual change as the state gets
bigger. You know, where a state is small and voters know most
candidates, probably no one knew or cared very much whether the
candidates were Republican or Democrat. But when the state gets
as big as it is now, the only thing the public can identify with is the
party, partisanship.
What kind of responsibilities to your constituents did you have?
We had the same as we have now. A person who knows his district
knows his responsibilities. Mine was a dairy district. You vote to
protect their problems. We had a lot of beef cattle. The question
of taxes, water, and all the community problems had to be dealt
with by the representative. We had little or no labor in those days,
so it was not a particular factor.
And most of the issues you talked about relating to land and water,
as you said, were important.
[Discussions deleted]
HICKE:
GARIBALDI:
13
Was your second campaign in 1937 any different from your first?
No. Maybe a little more difficult. I had a district attorney by the
name of [ ] Mays who ran against me. He was a little better
candidate, but I'd been in office for a couple of years; so it wasn't
too tough a fight.
[End Tape 1, Side B]
14
[Session 2, January 16, 1989]
[Begin Tape 2, Side A]
RICKE:
GARIBALDI:
RICKE:
GARIBALDI:
RICKE:
GARIBALDI:
There are some things you had in mind to tell me.
Yes. After talking with you the last time, it would seem to me that
the matters of the early days that would be interesting to you
would not necessarily be legislation itself--which is a matter of
record--but the first experiences I had when I arrived in
Sacramento. The most drastic changes I have seen in Sacramento
are the circumstances under which the legislators worked when I
first arrived here. We had no offices. Our only office was our
desk.
Your desk on the floor?
Our desk on the floor of the assembly was our office. We had no
private offices. The speaker had a private office and that was the
only one. We kept our work in our desk. The desk had a flimsy
lock that anybody could open. If we had anything of any
importance, why, we would never leave it overnight. We'd just
take it with us. The next day the bills and whatnot would be on
our desk, but that was our whole office.
Did you carry a lot around with you?
No. We didn't carry so much around. We carried around our
personal notes. In those days anybody could walk around on that
floor, particularly the press. They had access to the desks at all
times. They thought nothing of taking a little look through your
desk to see what they could find. In the early days lobbyists could
come on the floors and were around the desks.
RICKE:
GARIBALDI:
RICKE:
GARIBALDI:
RICKE:
GARIBALDI:
RICKE:
GARIBALDI:
RICKE:
15
We had absolutely no privacy. That desk was our office and
anybody had access to it. The sergeant-at-arms kept order and
gave us a certain amount of privacy and protection, but we
certainly never had anything like an office. We certainly never had
a situation like they have now, where they have offices with five or
six rooms and a staff of many people and stenographers and
receptionists. We had nothing like that.
What did you do for secretarial help?
Secretarial help? There was a secretarial pool and we would make
a request at the desk to have them send us a secretary. A secretary
would come down.
Down to your desk?
Down to the desk. And any dictation or anything like that would
be done there at the desk. We never got the same person, and it
didn't matter if you got somebody one day that was good; you
might ask for her the next day but there was a very good chance
you wouldn't get her. Because like everything else, pretty soon the
good ones were known and they were taken; so we'd just get
whoever they sent us to do our secretarial work.
What about files?
The files as they pertained to the histories and the journals were
taken every night and brought up to date and brought back to our
desks the following morning. Our own files we kept at that desk;
so if there was anything you didn't want somebody to be looking
through--which was a lot of it--you took it with you.
Do you recall any incidents?
No. I don't recall any particular circumstance where something of
a security matter was ever stolen or taken. That was more or less
because the members protected themselves in that regard. Not
because of any facility they had.
What about telephone calls?
GARIBALDI:
RICKE:
GARIBALDI:
RICKE:
GARIBALDI:
RICKE:
GARIBALDI:
RICKE:
GARIBALDI:
RICKE:
GARIBALDI:
RICKE:
GARIBALDI:
RICKE:
GARIBALDI:
16
We had a bank of telephones outside the chambers. The
telephones, as I recall, were pretty much where the present
speaker's office is, on the L Street side.
I see. And you could make long-distance calls?
Yes.
What did the chamber actually look like then?
Just exactly the way it looks now.
Because of the restoration?
Well, just exactly the way it looks now. We were the first to get the
electric voting machines. The first use was really haphazard.
Everybody was voting everybody else. It was never completely
done away with, but in the early days there was an awful lot of....
One member would vote usually at the request of a seatmate or
somebody else, but. . .. [Pause]
But not always as requested, I understand. Sometimes if a person
wasn't there they just went and voted for him?
They voted for him, yes. That wouldn't happen in a matter of
great importance. The member more than likely would be there
himself. But if he wasn't, it wasn't beyond the possibility that
somebody would vote him.
So this was quite a change then, was it?
The first year I was there we had microphones. But they didn't
have microphones the way they have them now at the members'
desks. The aisles would have maybe two microphones and you'd
go up to the microphone to speak.
To vote?
No, not to vote; to talk, to speak. To give your points and
positions. To talk on your bills. There wasn't so much live
entertainment.
[Discussions deleted]
Did you stay at the Rotel Senator?
I stayed at the Rotel Senator, where many of the legislators stayed.
[Discussions deleted]
HICKE:
GARIBALDI:
HICKE:
GARIBALDI:
HICKE:
GARIBALDI:
HICKE:
GARIBALDI:
GARIBALDI:
HICKE:
GARIBALDI:
HICKE:
GARIBALDI:
17
You had sort of a living room and bedroom?
It was all one room.
Oh, it was all one big room. I see.
I don't remember what we paid for it. But I'm sure it was very,
very little. Other legislators stayed in the Sacramento Hotel, or
the California, and the Elks Club.
And then you were just saying that besides the Sacramento Hotel,
people lived in other hotels?
There were few families at this time and we got to know each
other very well. In the evenings we'd go to the various places to
eat or we'd go to the hotel. All of us knew each other a lot better
than they know each other now.
And would you say that was a good thing?
I think it was a very good thing. I think it's one of the things that
has been the worst development of the passage of time in activities
in Sacramento. They've lost so much of the camaraderie that they
had. Even later before [Proposition] 9 we had many clubs where
people would get together.1
[Discussions deleted]
Then mostly in those days, too, it was a time when a younger group
was coming into the legislature than there had been before.
Who were your closest colleagues?
You mean personally?
Right.
Well, of course, Hugh Burns, who was the assemblyman from
Fresno. Oh, we were all pretty close friends. [Assemblyman
Jefferson] Jeff Peyser from San Francisco, from Pleasant Woods;
he became advisor to [Assemblyman] Walter Little, later became a
lobbyist for the railroads. Nearly all of them were from San
Francisco--Tommy Maloney, Bill Hornblower--almost everybody
in the assembly, I would say, I knew quite well. I would consider
them friends, close friends. People that I really knew.
1. Proposition 9 (June 1974). See appendix for more information.
RICKE:
GARIBALDI:
RICKE:
GARIBALDI:
RICKE:
GARIBALDI:
RICKE:
GARIBALDI:
RICKE:
18
[Discussions deleted]
Well, could you just describe your day-to-day routine?
Well, I'd get up and go down to the coffee shop in the Senator
Rotel, which would be filled with all the legislators, lobbyists,
clerks, staff. And then I'd go to the session. The sessions would be
in the morning, where we would take up our bills and vote on
them.
We would go to lunch someplace, come back, then in the
evenings we'd go someplace, maybe play cards or go to a movie.
Went to a lot of movies. You had baseball here at that time and
those of us who were interested in baseball would go to the
baseball games. Of course, they had no professional basketball
then. They had no professional sports here then except baseball.
Stay at the room, read.... [Pause]
Social life? Parties? That sort of thing?
Well, yes, there were parties. From time to time someone would
give a party. The people from San Francisco used to give fish
feeds at the old Sacramento Rotel once a year.
Did the lobbyists have the lunches and things like that?
Lobbyists had lunch, often. Some of the lobbyists used to have
weekly dinners that were very well known and very well attended.
They would have clam feeds and so forth. 1
Did you depend on the lobbyists for information at various times?
Yes. There's just no way in the world. . .. A member would not
be familiar with all the technical problems on oil, mining,
insurance, banking. There's no one in the world that would have
expertise on all those subjects. You've got to rely on somebody to
help you.
One of the things that happened in 1935 was that the legislature
enacted for the first time state income tax.2 Do you recall anything
about that?
1. See appendix.2. A.B. 1182, 1935 Reg. Sess., Cal. Stat., ch. 329.
19
GARIBALDI: Yes.
[End Tape 2, Side A]
[Begin Tape 2, Side B]
RICKE:
GARIBALDI:
RICKE:
GARIBALDI:
RICKE:
GARIBALDI:
RICKE:
GARIBALDI:
RICKE:
GARIBALDI:
RICKE:
GARIBALDI:
RICKE:
GARIBALDI:
I'm not after details about the legislation but just if there were
discussions about it.
I recall a lot of discussion, not response.
It was 25 percent of the federal, so it wasn't very much I'm sure. In
'35 you were on the Financial Institutions Committee, and then in
'37 you were the chairman of the Building and Loan Associations
Committee, so you probably had a lot of hearings.
You mean to tell me I was on those committees?
Yes. Rere are your committees.1 In '35, you were on Public
Morals: you were the chairman. You told me about that.
That's the present G.O. [Governmental Organization] Committee.
Yes.
That was a very important committee.
Why is that?
Well, it handled practically all the wide scope of how the
committee handles men. The same type of committee then as
now.
It was a money committee even then?
In those days there wasn't any such thing as a money committee.
Nobody was putting anything in political campaigns. If they were, I
was from Merced, and I was probably too naive to know about it.
And you were on Agriculture.
Let me ask you a question. Does it show who the chairman of
Agriculture was that year? Was it a man named [Assemblyman
James E.] Thorpe?
1. Garibaldi served on the following committees: In 1935, chairman ofthe Public Morals; member of Agriculture, Constitutional Amendments, FinancialInstitutions, Insurance, Irrigation, Livestock and Dairies, Mileage. In 1937, he waschairman of Building and Loan Associations; member of Agriculture, Insurance,Irrigation, Judiciary, General, Livestock and Dairies, Motor Vehicles, Public Morals.
RICKE:
GARIBALDI:
RICKE:
GARIBALDI:
RICKE:
GARIBALDI:
RICKE:
GARIBALDI:
RICKE:
GARIBALDI:
RICKE:
GARIBALDI:
RICKE:
GARIBALDI:
RICKE:
GARIBALDI:
RICKE:
GARIBALDI:
RICKE:
GARIBALDI:
RICKE:
20
It's in the handbook but I could check that out.
Oh, I was just interested to see how good my memory was.
I can look it up.1
No, I don't care.
Financial Institutions. You were on that committee. As you said,
you heard a lot about savings and loans.
I heard a lot about that.
Constitutional Amendments? Does that ring a bell?
I'm sure we had a lot of them.
Insurance?
There was lots on insurance.
And Irrigation. We talked about that last time. Livestock and
Dairies: that was also your constituency, right?
That's right.
And Mileage.
Maybe they paid us for mileage; however, I don't remember any
such thing.
That was a committee that had something to do with mileage, I
guess. Then in '37 you were chairman of Building and Loan
Associations and you were again on Agriculture, Insurance,
Irrigation and Judiciary. You were on Judiciary in 1937.
You know, isn't that strange? I don't even recall serving on a
Judiciary Committee.
And "General"; do you know what that was? General?
No.
Livestock and Dairy, Public Morals again, and Motor Vehicles.
Motor Vehicles was a very important committee. We were getting
into the question of the classes of gasoline. There was a lot of talk
about ethyl. The committee also discussed the weight of trucks
and the weight charge.
So building highways was starting?
1. Assemblyman John R. O'Donnell was chairman of AgricultureCommittee, 1937.
GARIBALDI:
RICKE:
GARIBALDI:
RICKE:
GARIBALDI:
RICKE:
GARIBALDI:
RICKE:
GARIBALDI:
RICKE:
GARIBALDI:
RICKE:
GARIBALDI:
RICKE:
GARIBALDI:
RICKE:
21
Very important. And in those early days it was a question of the
asphalt or concrete. They called it the black and white fight.
Those were big issues in '37. Yes.
And there were several, probably lots of oil and gas controversies.
One was the tidelands oil controversy.
Tidelands oiL It was just starting in '37.
And you probably didn't have too much to do with it. It was out of
your area.
I don't recall that we did at that time. Later on when I was back
here as a lobbyist, it became an important part of my operation.
OK. Let's talk about it when we get to that point then. Frank
Merriam, as you said, was governor then. And in 1936, he called
an extraordinary session because of the depletion of the state's
unemployment funds. Obviously, that was in the midst of the
Depression. What would happen when there was an extraordinary
session? There was one in '37 too.
There were extraordinary sessions in both years of my regular
sessions.
In '38 too, there was another extra session. Would that be right
after?
Shortly afterwards.
Did you get extra pay for that?
You know, I don't know whether we did or not. I would assume
that we did.
I would think so.
But I have no recollection one way or the other whether we did or
didn't.
What would that do to your lawyering business?
It interfered with business, of course. We obviously felt that the
publicity of the office and the name would create some legal
business and compensate for the loss.
There were some strikes, too, in '36. In the Salinas area, a lettuce
strike. Merriam brought in the Righway Patrol.
GARIBALDI:
HICKE:
GARIBALDI:
HICKE:
GARIBALDI:
HICKE:
GARIBALDI:
HICKE:
GARIBALDI:
22
As I said, labor was not a great power in my district.
Well, I want to hear as much about Hugh Burns as you can recall.
Maybe you could tell me a little bit about how you got acquainted
with him and your first impressions.
That is an interesting story. Hugh Burns was originally from San
Francisco. When I first knew Hugh he was passing through
Merced coming from San Francisco to Fresno. Hugh Burns's
father worked for my father in the store in Merced.
Is that right?
Yes.
On their way from the Midwest?
No. From San Francisco. They'd been in San Francisco; they had
been there for a number of years.
And where were they going?
They were going to Fresno. The next occasion Hugh and I became
acquainted was when we both belonged to the 20-30 Club. There
has always been Kiwanis, Lions, and Rotary. Young people
started what was called the 20-30. That was a service club for
young people between the ages of twenty and thirty. And I was in
the 20-30 from Merced and Hugh was 20-30 from Fresno.
We got to know a lot of people up and down the state. We
got to know the man who later became speaker of the assembly
from Modesto: Ralph Brown. Quite a few of us became
acquainted through this organization; it was a pretty viable group.
I went to the legislature first in '35. Hugh, at that time, had
an undertaking business that was called "Sullivan and Burns," in
Fresno. Hugh was a self-educated man. His formal education was
not extensive. But he was a prodigious reader. In history of the
United States, political science, California constitution, he was an
authority. I traveled with him on occasion; we went through the
Vatican Museum in Rome and his knowledge of the history of the
church--he was a Catholic--was amazing.
HICKE:
GARIBALDI:
HICKE:
GARIBALDI:
HICKE:
GARIBALDI:
HICKE:
GARIBALDI:
HICKE:
GARIBALDI:
HICKE:
23
He was also recognized as one of the finest embalmers in the
state of California, although he was only the owner of a small
mortuary in Fresno.
When Hugh decided he'd run for the assembly, we talked it
over and I became his campaign and finance manager. I think we
raised about $1,500. We weren't flooded with money, I'll tell you
that. But he worked hard, and so he was elected in '37. We were
very close friends to the day he died.
Why did he have this interest in government and politics?
He just had; it was something that intrigued him. He always had it.
He was a student of the early Continental Congress, a student of
all the early presidents. We were great railroad buffs. He knew
the history of the railroad over the entire country, particularly the
Union Pacific, Southern Pacific, and the Santa Fe. We would take
trips just to ride the train.
Just for the train ride?
Just for the train ride. There were no airplanes at first, but even
when there were, we would take the train wherever we possibly
could.
[Laughter]
I don't know when the Railroad Museum got started here in
Sacramento, but did you and he get in on that?
That is quite a museum and we went there a number of times.
It's wonderful.
It's fabulous. It's one of the finest things any place in the United
States.
I quite agree. Well, when Hugh Burns came to the assembly, did
he have anything in particular that he wanted to do?
His first campaign brochure said he was a friend of labor, for tax
reduction, old age security--a Democrat supporting [President
Franklin D.] Roosevelt policies. As he grew older he became
much more conservative.
I think that happens to a lot of people.
GARIBALDI:
RICKE:
GARIBALDI:
RICKE:
GARIBALDI:
RICKE:
RICKE:
GARIBALDI:
RICKE:
GARIBALDI:
RICKE:
GARIBALDI:
RICKE:
GARIBALDI:
RICKE:
24
Re was a great guy.
A little more idealistic when he came, would you say?
I think so. Yes. Weren't we all?
Any stories that you can recall about him?
Those stories I'll preserve for my book.
OK. You know you can put them down here and use them for
your book, too.
[Laughter]
Well, if anything comes to mind as we're talking that illustrates the
way people did things, the way Burns got things done, those are the
kinds of anecdotes that I like to hear. So just keep that in mind.
I don't know if there's anything more that we can say about
the legislature or not. Olson was elected, but you were not in the
legislature during his term, right?
I was in the legislature at the very start of his term. It was during
his term that I took a leave from the bench and went into service.
Well, let me ask just one thing about Olson. Do you recall his
pardoning of [Thomas] Tom Mooney? That was the first thing he
did when he took office I think. I recall the pardoning and it was
certainly the end of a great controversy.
I went through many pardon hearings on Mooney in the
legislature. Every year they had a bill to pardon Mooney, but it
wasn't until Olson got in that he was finally pardoned.
Why did it take so long?
Probably because there was so much money involved in the
Mooney defense fund. I don't have as much time, but I read that
Mooney trial from one end to the other. Did you ever read it?
I've read quite a lot about it. I've read several books about it.
And I've talked to his lawyer.
Then you know that there was considerable perjured testimony by
both the prosecution and defense.
Yes, that's right. I was just wondering if you could add anything to
the record about the controversy that went on in the legislature.
GARIBALDI:
HICKE:
GARIBALDI:
HICKE:
GARIBALDI:
HICKE:
GARIBALDI:
HICKE:
GARIBALDI:
25
I came from a district where three people had been killed in the
bombing. There was never any way in the world I was going to see
my way clear to vote to pardon him. Mayor [James] Jimmy
Walker of New York came to the legislature on behalf of the
committee to free Mooney. I was told by a San Francisco
legislator, "They're making an awful lot of this pardon now. I think
he should be pardoned. He won't last six months after he's
pardoned. He would leave his wife who has been his biggest
support. And labor, who was never all that crazy about him
because he was a problem to them will not help him." The
legislator said he assisted in the prosecution and believed he was
guilty but that he should now be pardoned. Well, I never voted to
pardon, but everything he said was going to happen, happened
when he was pardoned. Do you think he did it?
It's really hard to tell at this distance. It seems unlikely, but I don't
know. What do you think?
I thought he was guilty after I read the transcript of the trial. Who
knows?
Well, the trial doesn't seem to have been too fair to him, although,
as you said, it may have worked both ways. Is there anything more
that you can tell me about Culbert Olson?
No. I may have been unfair as far as he's concerned. It was just
one of those things. I personally didn't like him from the first day I
ever saw him.
OK then. So much for Mr. Olson. And the legislature? Have we
pretty well covered your years in the legislature?
I think so. I'm glad you told me of all those good committees I was
on.
How did you get on all those good committees then? You were
even chairman both years, and that's pretty unusual for a
freshman, isn't it? To be a chairman of Public Morals?
I don't know. I guess it was. I have no idea. I think you always get
where you are because of the good friends you have.
RICKE:
GARIBALDI:
RICKE:
GARIBALDI:
RICKE:
GARIBALDI:
RICKE:
GARIBALDI:
RICKE:
GARIBALDI:
RICKE:
GARIBALDI:
RICKE:
GARIBALDI:
RICKE:
GARIBALDI:
RICKE:
GARIBALDI:
26
Undoubtedly, someplace along the line I had a good friend.
Usually you're just about as good as the people around you who
are helping you. Nobody ever does it by himself.
Was the speaker making the appointments to the chairmanships?
Do you recall?
Re had a very big part in it.
Well, maybe the fact that you voted for Ted Craig had some
bearing on your appointment.
I would assume that it didn't hurt me any. But then the next year it
was Moseley Jones.
But then you voted for him, too, didn't you?
Yes, I voted for him. Well, what you're saying then, is that maybe
to get on good committees you should vote for the speaker.
Well, it was rather unusual that a freshman Democrat voted for
the Republican speaker, so maybe that did get his attention.
Not really, under the circumstances. Ted Craig and I became very
good friends.
So after '37 and the extraordinary session of '38, you decided to
run for a judgeship.
I ran for a judgeship, yes.
And you were elected?
Elected.
Is that unusual to run and be elected rather than to be appointed
the first time?
Well, I think it was extremely unusual at that time. Particularly at
my age. But the man I ran against was a very old man and had
been in for a long time and had not been really able to do the job.
They needed a young judge?
Well, Ral wasn't all that young but they needed somebody who
was more physically able than Judge [E.N.] Rector was.
The old man was Judge Rector?
Judge Rector. Re'd been there for years and years. It got to the
point where we had cases that hadn't been decided for over a year.
RICKE:
GARIBALDI:
RICKE:
GARIBALDI:
27
Why did you decide to run for this?
Well, there wasn't any way I was going to get appointed. That's for
sure. Olson wouldn't appoint me. Of course, he wouldn't quit
either. You had to run against him, that's the only way you were
going to get him out of there. So I decided to take a shot and run
against him.
You wanted to be a judge?
Well, I think maybe at that time I did.
[End Tape 2, Side B]
[Begin Tape 3, Side A]
RICKE:
GARIBALDI:
RICKE:
GARIBALDI:
RICKE:
GARIBALDI:
RICKE:
GARIBALDI:
RICKE:
GARIBALDI:
RICKE:
GARIBALDI:
RICKE:
GARIBALDI:
RICKE:
GARIBALDI:
RICKE:
You were just saying you wouldn't want to be a judge again.
No, I don't think so.
I ran across an article on you saying that you had been a city judge
in 1931 and 1932. We didn't ever talk about that.
Why, I don't think I was even a lawyer then. I was just at home in
Merced. I don't know. I don't think it was worth mentioning.
OK. Well, anyway, why wouldn't you want to be a judge again?
I think it's too confining.
Do you recall anything particularly about your.... I think you
were on the bench for two years.
A little more, yes.
Maybe even four? Three or four?
No, it was a short time.
Until '42. Did anything particular happen that you recall?
I had some very interesting cases. The one that I cited to you was
the most interesting.
The Retch Retchy.
Yes.
Then in '42, I think it was--I have it here somewhere--you went in
the service.
I went in the service, yes.
Row did that go?
GARIBALDI:
RICKE:
GARIBALDI:
RICKE:
GARIBALDI:
RICKE:
GARIBALDI:
RICKE:
GARIBALDI:
RICKE:
GARIBALDI:
RICKE:
GARIBALDI:
RICKE:
GARIBALDI:
RICKE:
28
Oh, I enjoyed it. That was something else I'm very happy I did. I
wouldn't want to do it over again.
What did you do?
Well, I went into the air corps. There was an airfield in Merced. I
got to know the people there very well, and it made me sort of
conscious of the service and made me think that I'd like to get into
it. So I went in.
You were thirty-eight then.
Yes, I wasn't very old.
Over the draft age.Oh, I was a superior court judge. I had a complete. . .. I didn't
have to go. I never was with the judge advocate department. I was
always air corps, but I was usually on assignment on judicial
matters.
So they made good use of your experience.
[Discussions deleted]The first case that I ever served on was a mid-air collision between
an air force pilot flying a military aircraft and his buddy, a United
Airlines pilot. The commercial plane was downed, killing over
thirty people. I was put on the court to protect both the airline and
military interest.
Did you stay in California, for the most part?
No. As a matter of fact, I was sent to Robbs, New Mexico. That
was the place where they claimed the cowards went overseas. I
stayed at Robbs, New Mexico until right near the end, when I was
transferred to Santa Ana, the headquarters. I saw no service
overseas.
So you did get a lot of good experience in the air corps, is that
correct?
Oh, yes, I think so. Sure.
You got out in 1946, I think. What did you do then?
I started practicing law in Los Angeles.
In your own firm?
GARIBALDI:
HICKE:
GARIBALDI:
HICKE:
GARIBALDI:
HICKE:
GARIBALDI:
HICKE:
GARIBALDI:
HICKE:
GARIBALDI:
HICKE:
GARIBALDI:
HICKE:
29
Just by myself, yes.
What kind of law were you practicing?
Everything. Just general practice. I had done a lot of trial work
before and I'd represented.... I told you Mr. Giannini had been a
friend of the family and advised me in the law school and whatnot.
I represented some of their firms, like Pepsi-Cola and First
[National] of Cal[ifornia] and they put me on certain boards, and I
represented a number of insurance companies: Industrial
Indemnity, Argonaut. Just had a general practice, a good practice.
What made you decide to return to Sacramento?
Well, I was a great friend of Mr. [ ] Mosher, who was the head of
the Signal Oil Company. I knew most of the people in the Signal
organization, and they used me to come up here and talk to one of
the people in the controller's office. That was the first time that
I'd come up here. There I'd been up a couple of times to visit
Hugh, just socially. And then the Hollywood Park [Race Track]
had a problem, along with the other race tracks, having to do with
the state's take from the gambling, and I was hired by Hollywood
to represent them on that matter. That's how I started.
OK. So going back to Signal Oil Company, you were retained by
them as a lawyer?
Yes.
And was that involved with the tidelands controversy?
It wasn't at that time. Later on we became involved with them,
yes.
What was the first problem?
I really don't remember. It was some administrative matter. It just
escapes me. I don't really remember what it was.
OK. Then your first real, shall we say, lobbying effort was on
behalf of the race track?
I think so. I think that would be fair to say that, yes.
And how did you go about this?
GARIBALDI:
HICKE:
GARIBALDI:
HICKE:
GARIBALDI:
HICKE:
GARIBALDI:
HICKE:
GARIBALDI:
HICKE:
GARIBALDI:
30
Oh, just about the same way you would go about anything else. I
presented, as far as our track was concerned, our case. The other
tracks were represented; I can't remember who. I think [Senator]
Ralph Swing, who was a former state senator. . .. I could be wrong
about this, but I think he represented Santa Anita. Bill
Hornblower represented Bay Meadows. I was one of many.
What legislators did you deal with?
On that first committee, Senator Harold Powers, who became
lieutenant governor. Jerry Seawell was on the committee. I think
Jim McBride was on the committee.
Well, we can check that. Which committee?
I think they called it G.E. [Governmental Efficiency]. But I'm not
at all sure about that.
OK. We can find out about that too. Governmental Efficiency.
I think those were some of the members. I don't remember the
others. That's a long time ago.
Yes. Well, the ones that you remember are the ones you saw the
most, probably.
No, I knew most of those people pretty well. Most of them had
been in the legislature; [Assemblyman] Hugh Donnelly had been
an assemblyman, and there were others up there. [Assemblyman]
Nelson Dilworth had been in the assembly. There were an awful
lot of people whom I had served with but I don't just recall if they
were on that committee or not.
How did you go about persuading members?
Well, it's the same old story in lobbying. You've got certain facts.
If, for instance, they say that a tax should be a certain amount,
you've got to present your figures and what your return on your
investment is at that figure, how that amount figures with what is
being taken from other states. And you put it together.
Lobbying is, you know, not all the glamor that everybody
thinks it is. It's presenting the facts of your case. It's just like a
lawyer presenting a brief. He gets all his facts. What does it do to
RICKE:
GARIBALDI:
GARIBALDI:
RICKE:
GARIBALDI:
31
the economy? What does it do for the state? What does it do for
your client? What does it do so far as the public generally is
concerned? You just try to present a situation where a person who
is reasonable would think, "Well this is right. This is the way it
should be." This business about you going in and saying, "vote yes"
or "vote no," doesn't happen.
A lot of research, it sounds like.
Yes, it's a lot of research, and some of this can come to you from
your own experience. For instance, for years I represented the
court reporters. I had known the court reporters and their
activities because as a superior judge, I appointed one to my court.
The problem as to whether they should be replaced by
electronic equipment was always at the legislature. We, of course,
always opposed being replaced.
[Discussions deleted]
One thing bothers me about people who talk about special
interests. Even newspapermen who use the term think it's a
terrible expression. They will say, "You think of some other word
that I can use instead."
Everybody is a special interest. In your work, right at this
present time, your special interest is doing what you're doing. My
special interest. ... When I'm hired by somebody, if it's by Leslie
Salt or whoever it is, that becomes my special interest.
Environmentalists. That's their special interest. We've become a
society of special interests. Everybody's got an interest.
Everybody's got a lobbyist. The garlic growers have a lobbyist, a
registered lobbyist here in California.
I guess the problem comes because some special interests have
more power and money than others.
Now there's another thing when we start talking about that. Most
of the big fights are fights between the industries themselves: oil
people; banks; savings and loans; racing, harness, thoroughbreds.
RICKE:
GARIBALDI:
RICKE:
GARIBALDI:
RICKE:
32
You name it. Those are big fights now. What is the common
cause? All the people have representatives.
The poor teacher. The biggest lobby up here are the
teachers. They spent more money than anybody else and their
results could have been better, but that's not the system's fault. It's
their productive part that hasn't held up in the system. They've
had everything to do it with. They've had the grass roots; they've
had the money; they've had everything. The preacher. They work
their heads off. They talk about the question of how they don't
have money to spend. Oh, but they've got pulpits; they've got
everything else that they can go to the people with.
The press. The biggest lobbyists there are and the most
effective are the press. Whatever happened to the day when there
was no printing anything except the news? Everything is an
editorial in the press now. It's our life. But I don't think we're
ever going to change it.
That's very good. It certainly answers the question I brought up.
It's kind of a long answer.
Well, actually I want to get into that a little bit more, but let me
back up. You've had something like fifty-four years of observing
the situation here in Sacramento, so I'm expecting quite a bit.
Let's back up just a minute. When you were in the service,
Governor Earl Warren became governor. I wonder if you could
tell me about him and your relationship with him.
Your feeling about people is always influenced by your
experiences personally with the person. I was very fond of Earl
Warren. I thought that he was really a fine governor who knew
what he was doing and was as honest as the day is long,
understanding, and just a high-class man. A lot of it was
influenced by the fact that I used to go duck hunting with him all
the time.
Row did you get to know him?
GARIBALDI:
HICKE:
GARIBALDI:
HICKE:
GARIBALDI:
HICKE:
GARIBALDI:
HICKE:
GARIBALDI:
HICKE:
33
I knew him because Ray Robinson had a duck pond in Merced,
and he would invite Warren and a lot of the people he knew down
there, and I was from Merced. So because of that contact and
friendship I knew Warren. I'll guarantee you, right was right with
Earl Warren, and it wouldn't make any difference about friendship
or whether you could shoot ducks good or bad. He called it as he
saw it, and he was an honor to the governorship. I would have to
give him the top grade, I think. And we didn't always see eye to
eye on what I was sponsoring, but anyway I thought he was a fine
governor.
What was his relationship with the legislature?
Warren was in the very good times of cross-filing. He had as much
Democratic support as he had Republican. I would say he had a
good rapport with the legislature.
He got support when he needed it?
I thought so. I thought he handled the legislature very well. Of
course, you understand, I wasn't up here all of the time he was
here. I didn't come back until'46.
OK. So once you came up here to Sacramento for the Hollywood
Park, then did you acquire clients?
Yes. For a long time I just came up here on special occasions, and
I always went back on the weekend. I just don't recall when I
started staying most of my time here.
Did the other clients come to you as a legislator or as a lawyer?
Or because of your success with the race tracks?
My other clients were probably influenced by my experience as a
legislator.
When you first started this new relationship with the legislature,
you were now part of the so-called Third House, and you had
looked at the legislature from the inside before. What were your
impressions of how it had changed in the ten years since you had
been there?
GARIBALDI:
HICKE:
GARIBALDI:
34
There were, of course, many changes. I mentioned some of them,
particularly office and staff.
In the late forties had it changed very much?
Yes. When I came back in '46 they had all this office and staff.
[End Tape 3, Side A]
[Begin Tape 3, Side B]
GARIBALDI:
HICKE:
GARIBALDI:
HICKE:
GARIBALDI:
HICKE:
GARIBALDI:
HICKE:
GARIBALDI:
HICKE:
GARIBALDI:
HICKE:
GARIBALDI:
HICKE:
The mode of operation was the same. The same requirements
were there for lobbyists. The same things had to be done. The
operation, as far as technique is concerned, has not changed much.
It's the circumstances within which we work that have changed.
This is largely due to the state becoming so large.
How did the increase in legislative staff change the way you and
other lobbyists did things?
It didn't change my lobbying any. I lobbied just the same way as I
always did.
You indicated that it changed the atmosphere you worked in.
Oh, yes, sure. It was maybe more complicated. You had to spend
more time with the staff and there were more bills. There were
more subjects, bigger problems. That sort of thing.
Did you have to have a little more staff yourself?
No. I have no staff. I have a secretary.
[Laughter]
And you have a desk.
Yes, and I have an office.
Oh, yes, you have an office. So you did this on your own pretty
much, all through these years?
With a lot of help from friends.
What about campaign funds? How was that handled? And how
has it changed over the years?
Well, when we started out we had very little. There became a
change in that regard.
When was that?
GARIBALDI:
RICKE:
GARIBALDI:
RICKE:
GARIBALDI:
RICKE:
GARIBALDI:
35
Oh, I don't know. It seemed to be sort of a gradual thing. We had
clubs. We've had good reporting laws for quite a while.1
When you say "quite a while," what do you mean?
Our reporting acts go back quite a while. We were pretty far in
advance in that regard from other states. [Proposition] 9 passed. I
assume there will be some stop to it, but we've had all these
requests for contributions, campaigns. It started out, people would
have a dinner at fifty dollars a ticket. It was a big amount. Then
they stopped having dinners at fifty dollars and they had a dinner
that got up to a thousand dollars. And then they would have
cocktail parties. When they started out, they would be a hundred
dollars. Now they are all five hundred dollars. It's become
ludicrous. You know all that: this is a present-day problem.
We're living with that.
Yes. What I wondered is if you could tell me about changes in
attitudes from the forties through the fifties and sixties and then
on.
Well, gradually more money was acquired. The whole operation
has changed. The requests have gone up. The number of requests
have gone up. Of course, these people who are running for office
have a tremendous expense. Their costs have increased.
Advertising particularly has gone up. You've got more people
requesting help. Television is very expensive. We are living in a
different time. It isn't just the candidate that causes the power.
It's the demands on the candidate. Some districts have more
people now than in some states. This has become a big state with
lots of people, which means that it has become very expensive to
campaign.
Let me ask you this. [Speaker of the Assembly] Jesse Unruh tried
to increase the professionalization of the legislature as we know.
Right. Re made it a full-time legislature.
1. A.B. 703, 1973 Reg. Sess., Cal. Stat. 2472, ch. 1186.
HICKE:
GARIBALDI:
HICKE:
GARIBALDI:
HICKE:
GARIBALDI:
HICKE:
GARIBALDI:
HICKE:
GARIBALDI:
HICKE:
GARIBALDI:
HICKE:
GARIBALDI:
HICKE:
GARIBALDI:
36
With higher pay and staff and so forth. And was there any changein this attitude during that time?
You mean the attitude about political contributions?
Did it in fact decrease their need for ...
Well, that wouldn't decrease the need for anything. No. The need
was because of the amount of people. No, I don't think that
Jesse's operation necessarily had triggered the result. He just
professionalized it more. Of course, he made the speaker's job a
lot more important. He made organization a lot more important.
Jesse was a great organizer. He may not have been such a great
state campaigner himself, but as far as being an organizer, he was
a master in this field. Jesse was in a class by himself.
Wasn't one of his ideas to decrease the dependence on the Third
House for information, so that legislators could get information
from their staff rather than depending on so-called special
interests?
I did not consider that Jesse did not seek information from the
lobbyists.
Would you say, then, that it didn't change your way of doing
things?
I don't think it materially changed my method of operation.
That's very interesting. As well as knowing a lot of governors,
you've known a lot of speakers.
A few.
Actually, I think before I ask you about some speakers, let's go
back to [Arthur] Artie Samish. Did you know him?
Yes.
And he did not do too much for the good name of lobbyists, right?
No.
Can you tell me anything about him?
Yes. I knew Artie quite well. And I liked Artie. The thought that
during the time Artie was here, he was the only lobbyist and that
he was the single lobbying factor in Sacramento was not true.
HICKE:
GARIBALDI:
HICKE:
GARIBALDI:
HICKE:
GARIBALDI:
HICKE:
GARIBALDI:
HICKE:
GARIBALDI:
37
There were other very, very good lobbyists here. A man by the
name of [ ] Stephens, who represented the oil companies, and
] Agnew had all the insurance companies. Walter Little
represented the railroads. There were lots of good lobbyists
around at the time who were very good at getting the necessary
information to the legislature or their clients and who did a very
good job doing that.
Earl Warren said that in matters pertaining to Samish's
clients, he did a very good job, which is true. But there were
others. Art was an ultimate promoter. If his operation would slow
up, Art would get publicity.
Well, he did have a certain amount of power.
He had the ability to put his clients in the best light possible. He
worked at this. There's a lot of misunderstanding about what Art
achieved, what he did and what he didn't do. As far as liquor was
concerned, the majority of those laws occurred when liquor was
taken from the Board of Equalization and put in the Alcoholic
Beverage Control Board. The architect for that was
[Assemblyman] Caspar Weinberger. And there hasn't been any
problem of any sort, any kind really, since the establishment of the
Alcoholic Beverage Control department.
What other misconceptions have there been?
All the other problems were before that time, but most of the
present laws Samish had nothing to do with.
I'd like to ask you about some of the speakers. Did you know
[Speaker] James Silliman?
No. I didn't know him very well at all.
Any of the speakers before Unruh? [Assemblyman] Luther
Lincoln?
I knew him but not very well.
[Speaker] Ralph Brown?
Ralph Brown was a good friend of mine who was from Modesto. I
knew him along with the younger people in the valley in 20-30
RICKE:
GARIBALDI:
RICKE:
GARIBALDI:
RICKE:
GARIBALDI:
RICKE:
GARIBALDI:
RICKE:
GARIBALDI:
RICKE:
GARIBALDI:
RICKE:
GARIBALDI:
38
[Club]. As a matter of fact, I talked to Ralph about running two
years before he ran for the assembly--I thought he had a good
chance to get to the assembly--and he said well, he thought it
would be a tough race. Donnelly was the assemblyman for the
district at the time. Re had been there for a number of years and
was a nice fellow. Ralph didn't want to run. But the next year
Donnelly went to the senate and Ralph did run. But I was never
here during the time Ralph was speaker. Nice fellow, but I didn't
know him very well.
[Discussions deleted]
Well, when Unruh was thinking of running for the speakership,
you already had a relationship with him. Is that correct? You
already knew him?
No, I don't think I did. I may have met him, but I don't remember
Jesse before he became speaker.
Oh, so you didn't know anything about his election as speakership?
No, I didn't have anything to do with it. I wasn't in that fight at all.
OK. Then let's start with when you got to know him. Maybe you
can tell me about that.
Well, there's not very much to tell. I'm not just clear on the dates
of when he was speaker.
Well, let's go back to [Governor Goodwin J.] Goodie Knight. Did
you know him?
Oh, yes, I knew Goodie very well.
What were your impressions of him?
I liked him very much. I thought he was a very nice fellow.
Did he make any significant contributions?
I don't recall anything of great importance just offhand.
And then [Governor Edmund G.] Pat Brown, Sr. was elected. Did
you know him?
Very well. I'd known Pat when he was in San Francisco. We had
mutual friends when he was attorney general and when he was
governor.
RICKE:
GARIBALDI:
RICKE:
GARIBALDI:
RICKE:
GARIBALDI:
RICKE:
GARIBALDI:
RICKE:
GARIBALDI:
RICKE:
GARIBALDI:
RICKE:
GARIBALDI:
RICKE:
39
Did you have a relationship with him as part of your work?
Sure. I was lobbying at the time and I had bills that had to be
signed or vetoed. I used to see Pat and talk to him all the time. I
still do.
And what were your impressions of him?
I liked Pat. I thought he had a great heart. A very kindly, nice
man. Re was smart. Re had two good people around him when
he was governor, which was a classic example of what a person
could do with good assistants. I assume you read that book of
[Assemblyman James] Mills's. [A Disorderly House, 1987]
Yes.
I never thought that their differences were that great or that it was
particularly indicative of what I remember about the situation.
But I always thought that Pat worked hard; he tried hard.
I think he'll always be remembered for his significant. ...
We talked about water, earlier. Re really had significant input on
the water problems of California. And he did as much as anybody
I know for the water problem in this state. Re liked to help
everybody.
What kind of leadership did he exert? Was he effective?
Yes. Re had his problems with the legislature. There was no
question about that. It was always a fight for him. But I thought
that he made a real effort towards leadership, and I don't think he
was too far off the point.
OK. Now let's go to Unruh. Did you get to know him in Los
Angeles?
No. I didn't know Jesse before he came to Sacramento.
You met him in the course of your work?
In Sacramento, yes.
What were your impressions of his leadership?
I thought Jesse was a good leader.
Row did he get things done?
GARIBALDI:
RICKE:
GARIBALDI:
RICKE:
GARIBALDI:
RICKE:
GARIBALDI:
RICKE:
GARIBALDI:
RICKE:
GARIBALDI:
RICKE:
GARIBALDI:
RICKE:
GARIBALDI:
RICKE:
40
Re got them done mostly by organization. Re was smart and a
hard worker. What more could you want than that?
Well, he seemed to have something more than that.
Well, you mean there's something about a person's personality that
sets him up a little above.
Maybe he had a special drive, a strong drive perhaps?
A strong drive. A very strong drive.
Why do you think he had this?
Oh, I think probably a little bit of his background maybe. Re grew
up being poor, having to work for everything he got in life.
Nothing was ever handed to him. I think that had a lot to do with
it. It has a lot to do with lots of people with drive.
Do you recall any anecdotes about him or anything about your
work together?
No, not particularly. Somebody from the university, I think it was,
interviewed me on just Jesse some few years back.
OK. Well, I have a list of some of your more important clients.
And I also have a statement from [Senator] Joseph Ratigan in his
oral history that you were the most persuasive, knowledgeable, and
honorable lobbyist in Sacramento.
Well, Joe Ratigan is without a doubt very perceptive. [Laughter]
Joe Ratigan is, of course, a very close friend and, irrespective of
what he may have said about me, I have the highest regard in the
world for Joe Ratigan. I think he was a real brain. And a real
man. And a real friend. Everybody liked Joe. I see him all the
time now.
Well, what I want to ask is how you go about doing these things
and being these things and being so successful.
In what?
Knowledgeable and honorable and all those good things.
Well, we just grew up that way.
You were also very successful in your lobbying career.
GARIBALDI: That's because I had good friends like Joe Ratigan and Hugh
Burns and Jesse Unruh. [Laughter]
[End Tape 3, Side B]
[Begin Tape 4, Side A]
41
GARIBALDI:
HICKE:
GARIBALDI:
Joe and I were great baseball fans. Baseball buffs. Joe claims he
caught Walter Johnson bare-handed, which I seriously doubt. But
anyway, we followed baseball. You probably never heard of this,
but there was a scandal in baseball in which it was alleged that the
[Chicago] White Sox team had thrown the World Series. Did you
ever hear about that?
I've heard something about that.
One of the big stars of the White Sox, first name was Joe, a
cartoonist, won a huge prize. There was a picture of this ball
player coming down the steps of the courthouse, obviously after
the trial. A little urchin with his hat turned to one side and the
tears streaming down his face, says, "Say it isn't so, Joe. Say it isn't
so."
Now we have a bill up and Joe Ratigan voted "no." He voted
against me, so I cut that picture out and circled it with red ink and
said, "Say it isn't so, Joe. Say it isn't so." Well, he's got a
tremendous sense of humor. He couldn't get over that and kept
the clipping for years. [Laughter]
We had a lot of laughs. He was really a wonderful man.
Great talker. He was asked one time to introduce [President]
John F. Kennedy. He and Kennedy had served during the war in
the navy. He started the introduction by saying that he was glad to
get back together with some of his old mates, "particularly you,
Jack, because I always liked you so much." And he said, "You
know, I wondered what had been happening to you through all
these years." This was right after Kennedy had been elected
president.
[Laughter]
HICKE:
GARIBALDI:
RICKE:
GARIBALDI:
HICKE:
GARIBALDI:
HICKE:
GARIBALDI:
HICKE:
GARIBALDI:
HICKE:
GARIBALDI:
HICKE:
GARIBALDI:
42
[Discussions deleted]
Let's go back to your clients. You talked about the racetrack,
Hollywood Park. Do you have some other racetrack clients like
that?
Earlier I represented Del Mar for a while.
Del Mar Race Club? Is there anything you can tell me about what
has happened to the racing industry, if you want to call it that, in
California?
That would take a week to go into all of the different ramifications
and what has occurred in night racing, harness racing, fair racing,
satellite racing, different types of exotic wagering. That's a four
volume book by itself.
Do you have to take into account all of these viewpoints? Do you
represent just one or two viewpoints?
Well, I represent a track now that has thoroughbreds primarily, but
we own another track that has some harness and quarter horse, so
I watch that too. Originally, it was strictly thoroughbreds.
You represented also the California Association of Highway
Patrolmen.
I represented them for a long time. Now they have a full-time
lobbyist and I'm a dollar-a-year man with them. I still represent
them where they think I can help.
What have you helped them with?
Oh, nothing much. But sometimes a problem will come up about
uniforms.
Did you get involved with the highway patrolmen's pay and
benefits.
Yes. Their pay, the question of whether they could keep their
pistols when they retire, whether they get extra pay for
motorcycles.
Can they?
You know, they've been fighting about it. I don't know that they
can. They've always wanted to. But I'm not sure.
HICKE:
GARIBALDI:
HICKE:
GARIBALDI:
HICKE:
GARIBALDI:
HICKE:
GARIBALDI:
HICKE:
GARIBALDI:
HICKE:
GARIBALDI:
HICKE:
GARIBALDI:
HICKE:
GARIBALDI:
43
OK. What about the Blue Chip Stamp Company?
For years I represented them. They haven't done anything lately.
They are practically out of the blue-chip stamp business.
[Discussions deleted]
Why are the stamp companies regulated by the state legislature?
!fyou had fly-by-night stamp companies, they'd sell these stamps,
and then the person would try to redeem them and there wouldn't
be the stuff to be redeemed. That was in the early going of the
thing. Oh, they had a lot of regulations. It was very highly
regulated.
They probably had fraud in the early days?
They had a lot of it. The good companies were trying to keep it
clean and the fly-by-nights were trying to loosen it up.
Leslie Salt was another client. That's an old California standby,
isn't it?
Yes. I first started representing them years ago. They had their
problems with the BCDC.
Yes, Bay Conservation and Development [Commission].
They owned thousands and thousands of acres. It became a
question of what they could do with some of them. They still have
lots of legislation.
They do. And the liquor industry?
Same problems: pricing, licensing. All the problems we've always
had.
Did you take over some of the problems that Samish was dealing
with?
Samish's big account was the beer people. I never represented
beer people.
I have [on my list] the wine and spirits wholesale organizations.
Well, wine and spirits, that's the wholesalers entirely. The wine
people were represented by Paul Leonardy, but the beer people
are now represented by Paul Didio, and I represented the largest
HICKE:
GARIBALDI:
HICKE:
GARIBALDI:
HICKE:
GARIBALDI:
HICKE:
GARIBALDI:
HICKE:
GARIBALDI:
HICKE:
GARIBALDI:
44
wholesale liquor dealers. At one time, a fellow named [ ] Flynn
had that account.
Then there are some people I wanted to ask you about. AI Shults?
AI Shults was a lawyer with Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro. When he
came up here, it was for the association of the major oil
companies. Finally, the lobbying was no longer done by the firm,
Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro. They [oil companies] established in
Sacramento their own association offices and lobbyists, and that
was AI Shults. Shults recently retired.
What exactly did he do?
Well, he was just a lobbyist for the oil industry. Of course, now
there are so many interests. You've got different types of oil
companies: you've got the majors; you've got independents.
Nearly all the oil companies have their own lobbyists now. Shell
[Oil Company] will have their own man. Standard [Oil Company
of California] their own man.
There's too much ...
Too much conflict. There were too many instances where the one
person could not represent them all.
[Discussions deleted]
OK. Let's go back to Hugh Burns. What was he doing all these
years?
He was president pro tern for the senate there for fourteen-odd
years. He had great influence on the legislature.
He sounds like a marvelous person.
He was. He really was. He was full of fun, jolly, took no guff from
anybody. [Governor Ronald] Reagan thought the world of Hugh.
Hugh could have anything he wanted from him. If Hugh would
have been in good health and available when Reagan was
president, there wasn't anything he wouldn't have given Hugh.
How did this close relationship develop?
I don't know. I think probably Reagan was smart enough to see
that here was somebody that might not be completely and entirely
HICKE:
GARIBALDI:
45
party-dominated, and that he might have a chance of getting better
consideration than he might ordinarily have with a Democrat.
You were telling me earlier that Reagan had this enormous ability
to charm people.
He really has.
[Discussions deleted]
[End Tape 4, Side A]
[Begin Tape 4, Side B]
HICKE:
GARIBALDI:
HICKE:
GARIBALDI:
HICKE:
GARIBALDI:
HICKE:
GARIBALDI:
HICKE:
GARIBALDI:
Let me ask you a little bit about the seventies. Reagan was
governor, and then there were quite a few changes in president pro
tern, and there were several speakers: [Assemblyman Leo]
McCarthy and [Assemblyman Robert] Moretti and [Assemblyman
Robert] Monagan. Is there anything that comes to mind that you
can tell me about those times?
Nothing particularly.
It was just "business as usual" for you?
Well, obviously we felt very much more comfortable with Hugh
there, but it was the same. Hugh was not well. He'd had an
operation or two and it was well that he got out. You can have
everything else, but if you don't have your health, you don't have
anything. And when that starts to go, it's just best to get out from
under the burden, and he got out. And that was fine.
[Discussions deleted]
How has the relationship between the Third House and the
legislature changed in the seventies and eighties?
Mine?
Yours and the Third House's in general.
I don't think it's changed very much.
Has the legislature itself changed in ways of doing things?
Well, I think it operates more along party lines than it did, but
that's almost a necessity when you get so many people involved.
It's pretty hard to retain individualism when you get hundreds of
RICKE:
GARIBALDI:
RICKE:
GARIBALDI:
46
thousands of people that are running for a public office. You just
have to rely on partisanship. That's just the result of size. There's
a lot more of that now than there used to be.
[Discussions deleted]
I found this article which says you were the most powerful lobbyist
and the highest paid and all that. You've seen this one, I take it?
[Rands over article]1
I guess so. Let's see.
It's an article from New West, but the interest of that is in how you
were so much more effective than other lobbyists.
I don't believe that. I don't think that's true. I think effectiveness
is determined first of all in the particular problems which you're
working on. One year I might have a big problem in some field.
And if I do a job and I'm effective, that's fine. Maybe the same
year, another lobbyist does a great job and he would have a banner
year. I think circumstances determine how great a performance is.
The fellow who plays in the World Series, that year he's big. The
next year, their positions are reversed. It's the same guy, but it's a
different look at him.
I think that the vast majority of the lobbyists are very
knowledgeable at their job. I don't think that I'm any smarter than
the rest of them or they are any smarter than I am. I think there
are a lot of us who do our job well. But I'm certainly the last
person in the world to think that there's anything about my
operation or my personality that's any better or any different than
the other people.
And people that try to give the impression that they have the
power, that they have the juice, that they can make the payoffs,
that they can make the buys, those people have got an ego that's
urging them on to make money, and sooner or later it will kill
them. Personally, I can't live that way. Sure, everybody likes to
1. Jeff Gillenkirk, "Who's Looking Out for Our Interests?" New West,June 16, 1980, p. 79.
RICKE:
GARIBALDI:
RICKE:
GARIBALDI:
RICKE:
GARIBALDI:
RICKE:
GARIBALDI:
47
have somebody say they're the best. Sure, I'm the oldest now. I've
lived longer. I'm the best at living longer. They can't take that
away from me now.
That's indeed an honor.
Sure. The good Lord has let me live this long.
Not only lived longer but still working successfully.
I hope that never changes. But it's no magic. If you treat people
fair, I think people will treat you fair. I have never asked anybody
to do anything that I knew was going to hurt them or is not to their
interest, because in the long run, all you're doing is destroying the
person and hurting yourself.
Where do you see that we're heading?
I don't think it's going to change very much. I think the day of the
individual sole lobbyist like myself is numbered. I don't think that
you're going to have too much of that anymore. I think you're
going to have large firms or firms connected with law firms. All
these law businesses are getting into a lobbying department. You
cannot, however, keep conflict of interest out of that kind of an
operation.
We're headed into a morass that's going to have nothing but
conflict of interest. And that's why people should be worried. Not
because of what the legislature is going to do to their positions, but
what the person they think is representing him is going to do to
him with somebody else also having a finger in the problem.
Well, it occurs to me that there are two governors that we haven't
talked about. [Governor Edmund G.] Jerry Brown [Jr.] and
Governor [George] Deukmejian.
Jerry was exactly the opposite from his father from a personality
standpoint. But Jerry Brown really knew what was going on. Jerry
Brown is a smart man. Re knew the bills, he knew the problems,
and in lots of respects was a very good governor. Don't ask me to
explain what the "Governor Moonbeam" syndrome was, but it was
there. I don't know what he was trying to prove. The fact that he'd
RICKE:
GARIBALDI:
RICKE:
GARIBALDI:
RICKE:
GARIBALDI:
RICKE:
GARIBALDI:
RICKE:
48
make a bad appointment on the bench--and he made them--and
the fellow would be defeated. Jerry would turn right around and
appoint him again.
Did you know him also?
I knew him when he was just a boy. I've known Pat and Bernice
[Brown] and Bernice's sister. It's a terrific family.
Row about Governor Deukmejian? What's your impression of
him?
Well, he is very honest. God-fearing. Very nice personal man.
Oh, I think Duke is all right. Re sure means well, I know that.
You told me your most important contribution to state
government was the Retch Retchy case, but in your career as
lobbyist, what would you say?
Oh, I don't know. I've been asked that so many times. I just can't
pick out one thing. Today's big crisis is yesterday's newspapers.
I would like to thank you very much for the time you've spent.
Could I just look at it in the rough? Just let me look it over and I'll
send it right back.
Absolutely.
[End Tape 4, Side B]
49
Appendix A
MEMORANDUM: HISTORY OF THE LEGISLATURE
Having spent over fifty years in Sacramento as a member and lobbyist, requests
have been made of me to note changes in the legislature during that period.
There have been nine governors during the period of my service in Sacramento.
James Rolph (Rep.) whom I was acquainted with for a short time prior to my
becoming a member; Merriman (Rep.); Olson (Dem.); Warren (Rep.); Knight
(Rep.); Pat Brown (Dem.); Reagan (Rep.); Jerry Brown (Dem.); and Deukmejian
(Rep.). Culbert Olson was the first Democrat in many years, and it was said at the
time that he looked more like a governor and acted less like one than anyone who
had been in the office. It was predicted that it would be another twenty years before
another Democrat became elected. This prediction became literally true, for after
Olson, we had Warren and Knight--both Republicans. If the Republican party had
not elected to run Good E. Knight for congress and picked Senator Knowland to run
for governor, the Republican domination of the office of governor would probably
have continued. However, as it turned out, Pat Brown beat Knowland during the
"right to work" issue and Good E. Knight was defeated as senator. Pat Brown,
Democrat, who was elected in that campaign, would probably not have run against
Goodwin Knight.
Warren was elected during the time we had cross-filing in California. This
allowed him to be elected in the primary if he received the nomination of his
registered party and the opposing party. To me, Warren was an excellent governor.
His political philosophies became decidedly more liberal after he became chief
justice of the Supreme Court.
Pat Brown was very popular and he also had a very fine staff. Mesple was one
secretary who had great rapport with the public and the lobbyists and was a great
example of how much help a secretary could really be. There were many great stories
about Pat Brown. One of the best, as told by Mesple, was when Brown asked him to
lobby Senator Carroll on a particular bill. Carroll emphatically told Mesple he
thought it was a terrible bill, he was not for it, was going to act against it, and was also
going to lead the opposition to the bill on the floor. Mesple gave all this information
50
to Pat and when they came to Carroll's name on the role call, Pat said, "Mark him
doubtful."
Jerry Brown was a much better governor than people give him credit for, but he
did not have Pat's charisma.
Over the fifty-year period there has been a decided change in the average age of
the members. In the early '30s, when the legislature was part-time, there were many
more retired members and the average age was much older. This was particularly
true in the senate. Nineteen-thirty-five, my first year in the legislature, was also the
first year of Gus Hawkins, now a congressman. At that time, we were in our very
early twenties and were the youngest legislators of that period. When the state
became so large and we had to go to a full-time legislature, there were many younger
men coming to Sacramento.
Occupations differed in the early days and the present time. Lawyers
predominated in the thirties and a survey now shows a low percentage of attorneys
serving. There are presently many members who were trained in the legislature as
staff members of members of both houses. There are also many more educators now.
There were no private offices for members of the assembly or the senate with
the exception of a speaker and president pro tem. Our offices were our desks; we
would keep all our files, correspondence, et cetera in these desks and lock them in
the evening. The locks were flimsy and we soon found out if you wanted to keep
anything private, you had better keep it with you.
During those days, the press and lobbyists could wander around the floor at will
and the press particularly had no reluctance about opening your desk to see what they
could find and use in their papers. Fortunately, again, as the full-time legislator
developed, the fine offices we presently have at the Capitol evolved.
With the advent of the offices also came a major change in the development of
the staff. Presently a member has the benefit of trained personnel that can brief the
members relative to the measures which will be presented for his or her
consideration. When you consider that in the year '87 approximately 2,692 bills were
introduced in the assembly and 1,697 bills in the senate, members can use all the help
they can get in trying to understand these measures.
Probably the greatest change over the last fifty years is the cost of campaigns for
election or reelection. In the early thirties, in the majority of the assembly and senate
51
races, the budget would not exceed $50,000. In some of the smaller counties $1,500
would do the job. When Senator Burns ran for the assembly in the late thirties, I was
his financial manager and our budget did not exceed $700. In those days, about all
you did was to run your announcement once in the local weeklies and take out a few
ads in the daily paper. There was no television and very little radio advertising.
Everyone is familiar with the cost of campaigning today. Since districts are
large, constituents must be reached through newspaper, radio, and television, and we
are all aware of the astronomical figures involved.
The role of the lobbyist, as far as the fundamental, everyday work is concerned,
has not changed dramatically. However, the make-up of the lobby corps and the rules
under which they operate have changed drastically.
The first significant change came with the passage of a number of acts which
required lobbyists to list their expenditures and to list campaign contributions. The
first significant legislation to establish rules and regulations for officeholders as well
as lobbyists was Proposition 9, which sought to monitor and control the activity of
lobbyists. As so often is the case, the initiative was drafted by parties who had no real
understanding of the basic problem. It was sponsored by Jerry Brown, then treasurer,
and was the springboard for his campaign and election to the governorship. The
timing of Jerry Brown's measure probably guaranteed his success in that it came at
the time of the Watergate scandal in the Nixon administration. It was often said that
if it had not been for that, in about two weeks' time the Brown crusade would have
been forgotten.
The act did accomplish a number of things, however: It marked the death toll
of large party entertainment and with the exception of the Derby Club, the two
largest weekly luncheons for legislative entertainment, the Clam and Coral, which
was started by Ben Reed, of the CMA, held once a week; and Moose Milk, which was
sponsored by a group of lobbyists, held once every week. The number of Moose Milk
sponsors varied from seven to nine and was made up of lobbyists representing beer,
wine and spirits, racing, public utilities, and the insurance and oil industries. The
meeting was given its name by Senator Begovich, and to this date, no one knows
where it came from or what it alludes to. There was a buffet lunch which started a
little before 12:00 p.m. and ended later depending on the length of time a member
had available and their propensity for food and perhaps drink.
52
Contrary to all published stories regarding the method of invitation to the lunch
or that only the friends and those who were supportive to the issues of the sponsors
were invited, the fact was that every member of the assembly and every member of
the senate was invited every week. It made no difference whether they were
Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative.
Senator Tom Reese, who later became a congressman and who under no stretch
of the imagination could be called a tool of the lobbyist, said it best in a letter to
those of us who started Moose Milk. He said after he had left and it was discontinued
that it was more benefit to the members of the assembly and senate and did more for
him in the way of becoming better acquainted with the members of his own house
and gave him the only opportunity of meeting and understanding assembly members.
He stated that the benefit to the members far outweighed any benefit to the lobbyists
sponsoring the lunch. We allowed very few guests and the only restriction we had to
impose was that no staff members could join the members because our facilities
would not accommodate the numbers.
Governors and nearly all executive officers, including lieutenant governors,
treasurers, controllers, attorneys general--all came to the luncheons. Lobbying as
performed by us lobbyists was really forbidden, but it did give us a chance each year
to meet and get to know the new members who came to Sacramento and to renew
contact with the older members. This all stopped, as far as we were concerned, with
the passage of Proposition 9.
The Derby Club is the one club that survived Prop 9. This club, which started
with fifteen members, gets its name from the fact that all the members wear a derby
hat at the Tuesday meetings and at the annual dinner. The members, regardless of
whether they are legislators, lobbyists, public officials, or general public, pay their
own luncheon check. The club is an example of an absolute monarchy. The king and
prime minister preside and theirs is the law. The first king was Senator Randolph
Collier, and the first prime minister was Luther Gibson. His successor and the
present king is Senator Alquist, and the prime minister is Ralph Dills. The name of
the king is the "Grand Plick" which name was obviously given the king prior to the
time women were admitted to the club. Membership and rules are decided by the
secret committee. There are absolutely no restrictions to membership because of sex,
color, or religion. There are even some Italian members.
53
Proposition 9 also provided a limit of $10 expenditures for a lunch or dinner to
a legislator. Prices what they are today, of course, make it impossible for a lobbyist to
become acquainted with a member through this means. Personally, I never objected
to the $10 limit because it materially reduced the average entertainment expense
which had become rather large over the period of years. The rule became ridiculous
when you consider the fact that a lobbyist who could not exceed $10 for a lunch could,
on the other hand, offer an honorarium of $1000 or more for a five-minute speech at
a client's convention. The lobbyist could also contribute to their campaign funds in
the thousands of dollars.
Proposition 9 was one of the increasing numbers of initiatives that gained favor
over the passage of years. As the respect for the legislature became less and less, the
initiative measures became more popular. When this form of legislation was first
started, the opinion was the 25 percent of votes on initiative were "No," but as
legislative action became less popular, it later was felt that 25 percent of those who
really did not understand the measure voted "Yes."
The initiative law came into effect during the time Hiram Johnson was governor
of California. The measure was hotly debated in the legislature and the argument
against its passage put its finger on the real weakness of the initiative in that it was
impossible to really educate the public satisfactorily on the issue. The final wording
of the initiative measure provided that in order to reduce the latter, it would provide
that the measure could only cover one subject. It was felt with this provision in the
law there would be protection against a measure being voted upon that the public was
totally unable to understand. Unfortunately, the courts, until just recently, never gave
a great deal of credence to this language.
The passage of Proposition 9 created such a furor among the ranks of the
lobbyists that the Institute of Governmental Advocates was formed. There had been
discussions over the years regarding the feasibility of a lobbyist association, but no
positive action was taken. The many restrictions and requirements imposed on us by
65 led to the founding of IGA. The original founders consisted of nine lobbyists
representing all the activities in Sacramento. They included labor, doctors, dentists,
insurance, banks, liquor, racing, and oil. As of February 1988, there were 200
members of the association.
54
The association has tried to present the opinions of their association to the
FPPC [Fair Political Practices Commission] to offer to assist the commission and
endeavor to bring a modicum of reason to the commission. The IGA has never taken
any steps against the $10 limitation rule or campaign reform, or presented any
general hostility to the act. One lawsuit was filed by the IGA to hold unconstitutional
the rule passed by the commission that a lobbyist could not discuss or counsel with his
client with reference to various legislators' records as to issues of vital importance to
the client. This case went to the California and the Supreme Court, and the IGA
prevailed.
55
AppendixB
ROLE OF THE LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATION
Many questions are asked as to what services a legislative advocate should
perform to properly serve a client. Based on my years as a lobbyist, I consider the
following services necessary for proper representation.
In 1987 there were 2,692 bills introduced in the assembly and 1,697 bills in the
senate.
The office of the legislative representative should first monitor all the bills
introduced. There are bill services which supply print-outs of the bills in digest form
as they are introduced. From these digests it can be determined if a particular bill
affects the interests of the client. For instance, Henley is affected by bills dealing with
taxes (including real, payroll, unitary, business, etc.); insurance (covering tort liability,
product liability, general liability, etc.); land use (including acquisition, title,
environment, etc.); labor (including bargaining, strikes, plant closures, etc.); waste-to
energy if the company should continue this activity.
Bills in the above category are put in an office computer for daily and weekly
report. We carried approximately 105 bills for Henley on the computer last year.
There are many bills introduced on subjects which normally do not specifically
affect the client. These include crime and punishment, education, liquor, racing,
general sports, religion, etc. These categories will not be placed on the computer, but
will be filed and maintained in the office.
Computer Service/Bill Tracking
The computer provides daily reports on the status of the bills entered into the
computer and the amendments thereto:
1. The computer report prints out what committee the bill is assigned, the date
set for hearing, and the result of the hearing. If the measure is defeated, ordinarily
that is the end of it. If passed, the computer will show the date of the next hearing
and the committee to which the bill is assigned will be reported. The client can then
appear at these hearings and have their witness present if it is deemed necessary.
56
The computer will also report when the bill is on the assembly or senate floor and the
number of the bill on file.
2. Often bills are amended many times before final passage. They may become
entirely different in thrust from the bill as first introduced. These amendments must
be carefully followed. Years back a bill which started out to license undertakers
ended up extending the runway at the Alameda Airport. Reports on those changes
give the client the ability to discuss the changes with their experts and to act on the
amended bill.
Campaign Contributions
Probably the most valuable service a legislative representative can perform for a
client is the advice and direction on the matter of campaign contributions and the
participation in the members' campaign fund raisers. Experience probably provides
the only answer as to how this problem can be handled. There is probably more
money foolishly spent on contributions and fund raisers than on any other activity at
the Capitol.
From the modest beginning twenty years ago expenditures have ballooned into
the millions. The average campaign contribution at one time was $250 to $1,000 per
candidate. Now the large contributors--the insurance and oil companies, medical and
dental associations, teachers and school associations, labor, banking, and savings and
loans--contribute in some cases as high as $5,000 to $25,000 per individual. There are
now fund raisers both in election and nonelection years. There are as many as from
one to six per night. There were at least two legislators that had eight fund raisers in
one year. Tickets that were once $100 apiece now go as high as $1,000 with tables
going from $5,000 to $10,000.
We do not recommend participation in this wild contest. In my opinion the
legislators are inherently honest, and I do not believe this spending buys votes. Many
competing interests are spending the same kind of money in an effort to compete in
the market to see the effort is counterproductive. Ex-Governor Pat Brown is
reported to have said that he would consider a contribution up to $10,000 as one for
good government, but anything over $10,000 was probably a bribe.
57
The sixty-four-dollar question is then, why does anyone engage in the practice
and what should be done in its place? Some perhaps feel this is now a part of the
Capitol syndrome and feel it necessary to preserve their position. Some may believe
the money payments are easier and can take the place of hard work and education
with the members.
There is no question that campaigns are becoming increasingly expensive,
media time is exorbitant, and California districts are large, so support of candidates at
election are necessary. First, wherever possible, a grass roots survey of the districts
where the client has factories, plants or business should be made. The representative
from those districts should be made aware of the local impact on the client as
practical support given.
The business of the legislature is primarily conducted through committees. An
advocate and his experts spend many hours with the committee chairman and
consultants to the committee. When the staff has been generous with their time on
the problems of the advocate, it is only fair the chairman and the staff should receive
help at reelection. The contribution should be made whether they ultimately see eye
to-eye with the advocates position.
There is considerable difference in the amount of work expended to kill a bill or
the energy used to get the passage of a measure. Senate Bill 1517 (Bergeson), a bill
to create a conservation district for the Signal Landmark Bolsa Chica Harbor and
environs, is the perfect example of the amount of time which must be spent on a
highly controversial measure. When you consider every one of the appearances listed
meant time also spent with the author, committee chairmen, and staff, you will
understand at election time some consideration should be given to their problems.
